Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Proponents of punning would label this:
>
> "OWL DL, now with more, but not all, of OWL Full goodness"
>
To some extent this is about labelling ....
I have been surprised how strongly some of my colleagues feel about this
issue - my original take, and still my personal prejudice (but not the
position I represent) is that punning is simply an area in which the DL
implementations are incomplete.
I suspect, but have not checked, that many of the WG would be unhappy
with such a position though - and since it would take me some effort to
convince HP of it - I haven't given either task much thought.
i.e.
- semantically using the same name for say, a class and an individual,
has the consequences that one might expect from OWL Full
- the OWL DL profile is incomplete, in that, consequences resulting from
punning are not computed (but still legal OWL consequences). i.e. an OWL
DL reasoner may implement punning in the way that OWL 1.1 reasoners
currently are doing so, but the resulting (lack of) entailments is
incomplete.
Jeremy